The article I wrote for "Croakey", concerning Australia's vexed issue of mandatory helmet laws, was published today. Predictably, a small flurry of comments has raised implausible claims of protection afforded by helmets - the following is a classic!:"...I could take you to ED and you could see the cyclists brought in by ambulance after a truck or a car has run over someone’s head."
...a bicycle helmet would protect me from a truck running over my head? No kidding!!!!
Unquestioning loyalty to bicycle helmets has spawned a general acceptance of fatuous helmet-protecting dogma. Notwithstanding this craven desire to believe all the helmet-hype, scientific evidence shows that contrary to popular opinion, bicycle helmets do not provide this mantle of protection.
The belief in helmets has been held together by a belief in their superior protective capabilities, coupled with the 'danger-mongering' of cycling. Inexplicably we have completely lost any critical powers to be able disseminate helmet information for what it actually is - helmet promotion.
But cycling is not dangerous:
- our 'fattest-nation' status is
- our catastrophic committment to the oil industry is
- our inertia in the face of climate change is
So what can we do?
Well for starters...lets' get physical (onto our bikes) & let's get critical (decide for ourselves whether to helmet or not)!!
...also visit "Croakey" and volunteer your thoughts...!!
==========================================
POSTSCRIPT:
Quick update with Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) and my exemption application:
* application received by the Centre for Road Safety yesterday (despatched March 10 2010)
* application currently being processed
* application process cannot be discussed whilst being processed
* application will be processed within a month (June 5 2010, 3 months after intitial despatch)
...and just as a little afterthought, how does one distinguish between a "Department", a "Unit" and a "Centre"? I'm curious - it seems to be an important distinction, and I have been the recipient of much 'authoritative disapproval' asking for the incorrect "whatever"!
I also saw that ridiculous comment from the 'trained ICU nurse'....
ReplyDelete*sigh*
In my experience, people who have had their heads ridden over by a truck don't require a hospital...
Cheers,
Dr Paul Martin
Brisbane, Australia
Did you see the follow up:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2010/05/07/bicycle-helmet-laws-are-failed-public-policy-says-public-health-expert/
Thanks for that, Edward, I hadn't seen it! Really heartening! - in fact, dare I say it, things are really starting to shift!
ReplyDeleteSue, Thanks for taking up the baton on this issue.Unfortunately, I suspect it's a bit like the abortion debate. A big 'freeze out' when the 2 sides get together.(as Robert M Pirsig would say)Perhaps the best shot would be compulsory for under 15 year olds and those who choose to ride 22 speed bikes in the traffic.Bit of a cop out, I know, but a win win for starters.cheers, Ian Menzies (Melbourne)
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ian!
ReplyDelete- interestingly, a politician in Sweden has put forward a proposal to their Parliament to repeal their existing mandatory helmet laws for under 15s - unsurprisingly, their MHL had a catastrophic effect on the rates of children cycling